Cited by 82Geology and Paleoclimatology ResearchArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils

Colonization of the Americas, ‘Little Ice Age’ climate, and bomb-produced carbon: Their role in defining the Anthropocene

Open access
Members of the Anthropocene Working Group:, Zalasiewicz, Jan, Waters, Colin N, Barnosky, Anthony D, Cearreta, Alejandro, Edgeworth, Matt, Ellis, Erle C, Gałuszka, Agnieszka +17 more·2015·The Anthropocene Review

Abstract

A recently published analysis by Lewis and Maslin (Lewis SL and Maslin MA (2015) Defining the Anthropocene. Nature 519: 171–180) has identified two new potential horizons for the Holocene−Anthropocene boundary: 1610 (associated with European colonization of the Americas), or 1964 (the peak of the excess radiocarbon signal arising from atom bomb tests). We discuss both of these novel suggestions, and consider that there is insufficient stratigraphic basis for the former, whereas placing the latter at the peak of the signal rather than at its inception does not follow normal stratigraphical practice. Wherever the boundary is eventually placed, it should be optimized to reflect stratigraphical evidence with the least possible ambiguity.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/2053019615587056

Cites

56 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The ~1610 C.E. CO2 dip of about 10 ppm and synchronous minor δ13C enrichment do not exceed natural Holocene variability.

    “A short-lived dip at ~1610 C.E. of about 10 ppm in the CO2 curve, and synchronous minor enrichment in δ 13 C, has been proposed as a marker for the start of the Anthropocene ( 5 ), though these fluctuations do not exceed natural Holocene variability ( 70 ; Fig. 5A).”

    From The Anthropocene is functionally and stratigraphically distinct from the Holocene (2016) · cites this paper as [70]

    In “Events of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and the ‘Orbis’ hypothesis” (page unavailable), the paper describes the ~1610 CO₂ dip as about 10 ppm and within the range of natural Holocene variability. The retrieved passages do not address synchronous δ¹³C enrichment or whether that fluctuation falls within natural variability. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Members of the Anthropocene Working Group:, Zalasiewicz, J., Waters, C. N., Barnosky, A. D., Cearreta, A., Edgeworth, M., Ellis, E. C., Gałuszka, A., Gibbard, P. L., Grinevald, J., Hajdas, I., Ivar do Sul, J., Jeandel, C., Leinfelder, R., McNeill, Jr., Poirier, C., Revkin, A., deB Richter, D., Steffen, W., Summerhayes, C., Syvitski, J. P., Vidas, D., Wagreich, M., Williams, M., & Wolfe, A. P.
Affiliations
  • University of Leicester (GB)
  • British Geological Survey (GB)
  • University of the Basque Country (ES)
  • Jan Kochanowski University (PL)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
  • Association of Polar Early Career Scientists, Brazil
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Georgetown University (US)
  • Pace University (US)
  • Duke University, USA
  • Australian National University (AU)
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
  • University of Vienna (AT)
  • University of Alberta (CA)
Venue
The Anthropocene Review
Published
2015-05-29
Volume
2
Issue
2
Pages
117-127
ISSN
  • 2053-0196 (ISSN-L)
  • 2053-020X
OpenAlex
W2158273866
Cited by
82
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 3
FWCI
7.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Anthropocene Review (publishedVersion)
  • NERC Open Research Archive (Natural Environment Research Council) (acceptedVersion)
  • BIBSYS Brage (BIBSYS (Norway)) (acceptedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Geology and Paleoclimatology Research
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Paleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Keywords
Anthropocene, European colonization of the Americas, Little Ice Age, carbon-14, stratigraphy, chronology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review